9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant. Under these circumstances, the question of refund of excess payment of duty does not arise at all - revenue neutrality is not a ground and the interest is liable to be paid. Since no refund of excess payment was admissible to the appellant, obviously the only conclusion prima facie possible would be that the appellant has to pay interest on the short payment - Following decsion of Bayer ABS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were initiated for recovery of interest on the short payment which has culminated in confirmation of demand for Rs.6,31,020/-. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Supporting the submission for stay against recovery, the learned Consultant submits that the excess payment was more than Rs.23 lakhs and the short payment was more than Rs.38 lakhs and if they are allowed to adjust the excess payment agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assistant Commissioner by the appellant wherein they themselves stated that they would be claiming refund of excess payment, if any and short payment will be made good. In view of this, he submits that appellant may be directed to deposit the entire amount. 5. I have considered these submissions made by both sides. In this case wherever excess payment has been made, no refund has been claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d have been required to deposit the entire amount, the learned consultant submitted that the appellant has a prima facie case in the light of the decision of the Hon ble High Court in Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts and it is his submission that both the cases are same. This submission requires further detailed consideration of all the facts and circumstances and statutory provisions which can be done ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
